[Bug 1036396] Review Request: python-social-auth - Social auth made simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036396 Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jdor...@redhat.co |needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co |m) |m) --- Comment #13 from Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com --- Hi Christopher, You have asked whether I am going to push it to EPEL. Are there some additional requirements for the package to be pushed to EPEL? How can I request epel branches? Thank You, QB -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055419] New: Review Request: python-oslo-rootwrap - Oslo Rootwrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055419 Bug ID: 1055419 Summary: Review Request: python-oslo-rootwrap - Oslo Rootwrap Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mru...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-oslo-rootwrap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-oslo-rootwrap-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Oslo Rootwrap allows fine filtering of shell commands to run as `root` from OpenStack services. Unlike other Oslo deliverables, it should **not** be used as a Python library, but called as a separate process through the `oslo-rootwrap` command: `sudo oslo-rootwrap ROOTWRAP_CONFIG COMMAND_LINE` Fedora Account System Username: mrunge rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-oslo-rootwrap-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-oslo-rootwrap-1.0.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm ./python-oslo-rootwrap.spec python-oslo-rootwrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deliverables - deliverable, deliverable s, deliverers python-oslo-rootwrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo - suds, ludo, sumo python-oslo-rootwrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deliverables - deliverable, deliverable s, deliverers python-oslo-rootwrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo - suds, ludo, sumo python-oslo-rootwrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oslo-rootwrap 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6428567 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036396] Review Request: python-social-auth - Social auth made simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036396 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- For EPEL6 these python versioned macros don't exist, you need to add some hack for epel == 6 with __python macro redefined. But EPEL7 doesn't need this modification. For requesting new branches instructions, please refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055436] New: Review Request: povray - The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055436 Bug ID: 1055436 Summary: Review Request: povray - The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rc040...@freenet.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/povray.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/povray-3.7-0.1.20131116git39ce8a2.fc21.src.rpm Description: POV-Ray is a free, full-featured ray tracer. Fedora Account System Username: corsepiu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055419] Review Request: python-oslo-rootwrap - Oslo Rootwrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055419 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||p...@draigbrady.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@draigbrady.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036396] Review Request: python-social-auth - Social auth made simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036396 Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-social-auth New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: jdornak InitialCC: Users requested EPEL 6 and 7 branches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055419] Review Request: python-oslo-rootwrap - Oslo Rootwrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055419
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
Minor caveat is there is no %check
I won't hold it up for that, so +1
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/padraig/1055419-python-oslo-
rootwrap/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/oslo(python-oslo-messaging, python-oslo-config)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests
[Bug 1048616] Review Request: ocaml-core - Janet Street's OCaml Standard Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048616 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@sylvestre.me Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Reviewing this once the dependencies are ready (Cc:ing myself there) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1011411 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011411 [Bug 1011411] zeroinstall-injector-2.6 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055436] Review Request: povray - The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055436 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Damn, just sent email to the team about the packaging, you've done it now:) Empty my trash again. Taken. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Rename Request: ovirt-engine-sdk-python - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bugs.michael@gmx. | |net)| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055419] Review Request: python-oslo-rootwrap - Oslo Rootwrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055419 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Awesome, thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-oslo-rootwrap Short Description: Oslo Rootwrap Owners: mrunge Branches: f19 f20 el6 el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055480] New: epel7 branch for perl-Want
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055480 Bug ID: 1055480 Summary: epel7 branch for perl-Want Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: Package Review Assignee: lkund...@v3.sk Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Flags: fedora-cvs? Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Want New Branches: epel7 Owners: lkundrak laxathom The Fedora maintainer (Ralf Corsepius, corsepiu) is not willing to maintain EPEL packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] New: Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 Bug ID: 1055482 Summary: Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java-0.6-0.1.1.0.SNAPSHOT.fc19.src.rpm Description: Java language bindings for the Qpid Proton messaging framework. Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6428965 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 165616] Review Request: krusader - Advanced twin-panel (commander-style) file-manager for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165616 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2005-08-25 15:24:51 |2014-01-20 06:45:49 --- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Radek, please don't reopen old tickets for an SCM change request, but follow the instructions in the Wiki and only set the fedora-cvs flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 163779] Tracker: Extras packages accepted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=163779 Bug 163779 depends on bug 165616, which changed state. Bug 165616 Summary: Review Request: krusader - Advanced twin-panel (commander-style) file-manager for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165616 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005
--- Comment #1 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
There are some problems, I will post them in the next comment
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[X]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores
mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is
[Bug 165616] Review Request: krusader - Advanced twin-panel (commander-style) file-manager for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165616 Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com --- Sorry, I should read the instructions more carefully next time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0). 4 files have
unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in
[Bug 1027770] Review Request: ocserv - OpenConnect SSL VPN server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #55 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ocserv New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: nmav -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928609] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928609 --- Comment #36 from Antoine Martin anto...@nagafix.co.uk --- Please note that as of version 0.11.0, released just now: http://lists.devloop.org.uk/pipermail/shifter-users/2014-January/000792.html A number of dependencies have been added or changed - which may require changes to the spec file, OTOH: * python-lz4 is nice to have (much faster than zlib) and easy to package * we have a Cython colourspace conversion fallback, so vpx support no longer requires swscale (ffmpeg/libav) * we can take advantage of OpenCL or CUDA if present for colourspace conversion too (let's hope the OpenCL packaging gets sorted out) * NVENC (xpra exclusive) and CUDA are unlikely to be packaged by Fedora, but maybe for RHEL? * webp: found a memory leak in it, so this encoding is no longer used automatically (for lossless refresh/small regions) and very strongly discouraged - until I find the source of the leak. So the dependency can be dropped, at least for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- BTW, can you update to version 0.6.1 to be in sync with qpid-proton package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Marek Goldmann from comment #2) BTW, can you update to version 0.6.1 to be in sync with qpid-proton package? yes sure, but havent found a valid source url... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055500] New: Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055500 Bug ID: 1055500 Summary: Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh-2014.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This library wraps and extends libssh, providing an asynchronous GIO-like API. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055501] New: Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055501 Bug ID: 1055501 Summary: Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh-2014.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This library wraps and extends libssh, providing an asynchronous GIO-like API. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055500] Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055500 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1055501 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055501] Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055501 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-01-20 07:26:24 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1055500 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055500] Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055500 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6429169 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Other question only for rawhide or the package need in other branches? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java-0.6-0.1.1.0.SNAPSHOT.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482
--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
Ah sorry, I was thinking about 0.6:
http://www.apache.org/dist/qpid/proton/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
If you use stable version (and this is what you do now), please change the
version-release to: 0.6-1, not 0.6-0.1.
In general - I would personally use the tar.gz instead exporting the source and
remove the unnecessary files, can you do it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) Other question only for rawhide or the package need in other branches? f19, f20 and Rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com ---
Problems (blocker)
===
* Naming: according to the guidelines[1] a snapshot package has a release tage
of the form date-of-checkout vcs-name commit-id. In your case something like
20140120gitc112d69
In addition, depending if the package is a pre relase or a post release, the
full version must be:
# pre release
Release: 0.1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
# post release
Release: 1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
where checkout is
%global checkout 20140120git%{shortcommit}
Your package is a pre release, isn't it?
* Python requires and bytecompiling: your package is python 3 based but the
python sources are installed in a private directory. Some of the things RPM
does for packages under python system directories aren't done (properly),
namely:
- bytecompilling [2], RPM is using python 2.7 to generate the .pyc and .pyo of
your package. If you define
%global __python %{__python3}
RPM will use python3 for bytecompilling
- Python 3 runtime, your package does not have a Requires on python3. It's
generated automatically for packages under python system directory. I haven't
found a better way than an explicit
Requires: python(abi) = 3.3
* Directories: if your package requires sudo to run (and I think it does), it
should Require it. That way /etc/sudoers.d is not unowned
Requires: sudo
Non blocker
===
I think primarely is a typo, I have only found primarily in my english
dictionary.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055500] Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055500 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773492] Review Request: ibsim - InfiniBand network simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773492 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- Wow, looks like the one who's actually been unresponsive here has been me - no idea why I haven't responded to comment #6. Anyway, Jon, as others pointed out it'd probably be better to fill a new request and make this one duplicate of it. Could you do that ? Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
(In reply to Marek Goldmann from comment #6)
Ah sorry, I was thinking about 0.6:
http://www.apache.org/dist/qpid/proton/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Done
If you use stable version (and this is what you do now), please change the
version-release to: 0.6-1, not 0.6-0.1.
Done
In general - I would personally use the tar.gz instead exporting the source
and remove the unnecessary files, can you do it?
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-proton-java-0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm
- fix release field
- use upstream source archive
- enable test suite
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6429283 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Issues: === - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) Why is LICENSE.txt is removed? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I remove those files because they are installed in the library directory, /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/statsmodels and are redundant with the LICENSE.txt in %doc statsmodels/LICENSE.txt seems to be an older version of LICENSE.txt Anyway, I have copied it and it is in %doc with LICENSE.txt renamed as LICENSE.statsmodels.txt I will ask upstream to remove/update this file - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Part of problem is that LICENSE.txt et. al. are removed. Another is that the subpackages does not require the base package and thus can be installed without license info. Either require the base package or (IMHO better) duplicate the license files in the subpackages. The LICENSE.txt files are duplicated in %doc for pythons-statsmodels and python-statsmodels-doc - Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Personally, I don't see the need for the upname macro. It just makes things harder to read. upname is upstream name. As the python guidelines requires to preappend python- python3- to the package name (which is usually the same as the upstream name), upname is very handy Also, since the python3 stuff isn't functional I think it's better to remove for now, re-introducing it once it works. No blockers. I'm testing python3 packages of the missing dependencies. - Add a -a option to the cp command in %build to preserve timestamps. Done - The find command has a '-delete' option which is somewhat cleaner. No blocker. Updated, thanks New SRPM and spec with the fixes mentioned above Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-statsmodels.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-statsmodels-0.5.0-5.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #10 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Looks way better now! Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- Plan is have this for Fedora 19/20 and rawhide (21) then to EPEL7 (and EPEL 6). We can have it as a feature but I am working with upstream directly: Upstream ticket: https://dev.icinga.org/issues/5499 This is for 1.x for now we want 2.x also but got to get this first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 --- Comment #5 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- I need a formal reviewer however. Barring none on this ticket I will email the Server SIG group or ask some folks on IRC -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qpid-proton-java Short Description: Java libraries for Qpid Proton Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1029087] Review Request: icinga - monitoring tool. a fork of nagios.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029087 Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgr...@redhat.com Fixed In Version|mgr...@redhat.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1029087] Review Request: icinga - monitoring tool. a fork of nagios.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029087 Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||mgr...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1052393] Review Request: beignet - Open source implementation of the OpenCL for Intel GPUs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052393 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6429393 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055482] Review Request: qpid-proton-java - Java libraries for Qpid Proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055482 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Sergio Pascual from comment #2)
Problems (blocker)
===
* Naming: according to the guidelines[1] a snapshot package has a release
tage of the form date-of-checkout vcs-name commit-id. In your case
something like 20140120gitc112d69
In addition, depending if the package is a pre relase or a post release, the
full version must be:
# pre release
Release: 0.1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
# post release
Release: 1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
where checkout is
%global checkout 20140120git%{shortcommit}
Your package is a pre release, isn't it?
Yup, and fixed (You are right. That said, I really dislike these GL when
applied here. But that's another story).
* Python requires and bytecompiling: your package is python 3 based but the
python sources are installed in a private directory. Some of the things RPM
does for packages under python system directories aren't done (properly),
namely:
- bytecompilling [2], RPM is using python 2.7 to generate the .pyc and .pyo
of your package. If you define
%global __python %{__python3}
RPM will use python3 for bytecompilling
Thanks for good catch! Fixed.
- Python 3 runtime, your package does not have a Requires on python3. It's
generated automatically for packages under python system directory. I
haven't found a better way than an explicit
Requires: python(abi) = 3.3
Thanks again for good catch, fixed using = 3.3 . Also added R: python3-gobject
and R: gtk3 for the glib/gtk3 introspections stuff. Might be missing something
more here...
In case you wonder about it (?) I don't want to install this under the python
system directory since it doesn't contain anything which should be used by
other packages.
* Directories: if your package requires sudo to run (and I think it does),
it should Require it. That way /etc/sudoers.d is not unowned
Requires: sudo
Indeed, fixed.
Non blocker
===
I think primarely is a typo, I have only found primarily in my english
dictionary.
No typo. Bad Englisch, not my native language. Fixed
spec:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/system-config-repo/2/system-config-repo.spec
srpm:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/system-config-repo/2/system-config-repo-0-0.2.20140117gitc112d69.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Hm.. basically, this looks fine. But: we still need to add ./statsmodels/datasets/COPYING to %doc, don't we? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005
--- Comment #4 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com ---
- Python 3 runtime, your package does not have a Requires on python3. It's
generated automatically for packages under python system directory. I
haven't found a better way than an explicit
Requires: python(abi) = 3.3
Thanks again for good catch, fixed using = 3.3 .
I don't think you can do that (= 3.3). Even if the code is compatible between
3.3 and (say), 3.4, the pyc and pyc have to be recompiled for each version of
the interpreter.
Instead of the explicit version you can use
Requires: python(abi) = %{python3_version}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 --- Comment #7 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Yes, I have added COPYING and README,txt in datasets as README.datasets.txt and COPYING.datasets in %doc Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-statsmodels.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-statsmodels-0.5.0-6.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Update to 0install 2.6: Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/0install.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/0install-2.6-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961180] Review Request: dhcpy6d - DHCPv6 server daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961180 marcindulak marcin.du...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|marcin.du...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977646] Review Request: mylvmbackup - Utility for creating MySQL backups via LVM snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646 marcindulak marcin.du...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|marcin.du...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051372] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051372 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Blocks|908329 (Horde_Core) | Depends On||908329 (Horde_Core) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908329 [Bug 908329] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Core - Horde Core Framework libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908329] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Core - Horde Core Framework libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908329 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1051372 (Horde_Form) Depends On|1051372 (Horde_Form)| Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051372 [Bug 1051372] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874677] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Rpc - Horde RPC API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874677 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||960851 (Horde_Dav) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960851 [Bug 960851] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Dav - Horde library for WebDAV, CalDAV, CardDAV -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960851] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Dav - Horde library for WebDAV, CalDAV, CardDAV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960851 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 (Horde_Rpc) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874677 [Bug 874677] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Rpc - Horde RPC API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 929041] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Kolab-Storage - A package for handling Kolab data stored on an IMAP server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929041 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||895880 (Horde_Share) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895880 [Bug 895880] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Share - Horde Shared Permissions System -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895880] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Share - Horde Shared Permissions System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895880 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||929041 ||(Horde_Kolab_Storage) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929041 [Bug 929041] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Kolab-Storage - A package for handling Kolab data stored on an IMAP server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005
--- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Sergio Pascual from comment #4)
- Python 3 runtime, your package does not have a Requires on python3.
It's
generated automatically for packages under python system directory. I
haven't found a better way than an explicit
Requires: python(abi) = 3.3
Thanks again for good catch, fixed using = 3.3 .
I don't think you can do that (= 3.3). Even if the code is compatible
between 3.3 and (say), 3.4, the pyc and pyc have to be recompiled for each
version of the interpreter.
Instead of the explicit version you can use
Requires: python(abi) = %{python3_version}
Yes, that must be the way to do it, fixed. Thanks! New links:
spec:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/system-config-repo/3/system-config-repo.spec
srpm:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/system-config-repo/3/system-config-repo-0-0.3.20140117gitc112d69.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- All looks good *** Approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 --- Comment #9 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Fine, this is approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-statsmodels Short Description: Statistics in Python Owners: sergiopr Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021017] Review Request: lexertl - Modular lexical analyzer generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021017 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I have updated to the package to the latest release. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lexertl/lexertl.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lexertl/lexertl-2013_11_20-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I will take this one. Would you mind reviewing bug 1021017 in exchange? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055108] Review Request: freecolor - Display memory information graphically
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055108
Jeff Backus jeff.bac...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.bac...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Backus jeff.bac...@gmail.com ---
Hi Denis,
I have performed an ***INFORMAL*** review of your package. Please note that I
am still new to packaging and everything I say should be take with a (large)
grain of salt. Hopefully it will speed up the official review.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* BSD.
License appears to be the 4-clause BSD license with clauses 2-4 removed, not
the MIT license. Additionally, the name JUHA PIRKOLA appears in the
disclaimer, not Roy Keene, the listed author. Please have upstream correct the
license in freecolor.c. It would be great if they would also include a copy of
the license as a separate file. If upstream isn't willing to provide
clarification then you will need to get Legal to bless it.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
rpmlint reported three warnings. Two were with regard to the spelling of
'bargraph'. The third was setup-not-quiet. To correct the third, please add
the -q option to %setup.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: package does use rm -rf %{buildroot}, but only for EPEL5.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Thanks for review and some really good catches! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: system-config-repo Short Description: Administrate a single yum repository file Owners: leamas Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051372] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051372 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||949038 (horde) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949038 [Bug 949038] Review Request: php-horde-horde - Horde Application Framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949038] Review Request: php-horde-horde - Horde Application Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949038 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Depends On||1051372 (Horde_Form) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051372 [Bug 1051372] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051665] Review Request: vdr-skinnopacity - A highly customizable native true color skin for the VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-7.20131221git0b29805.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-7.20131221git0b29805.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
Issues, in no particular order:
1) These lines at the top of the spec file:
%global debug_package %{nil}
%global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%global __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh
%global __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh
should all be removed. The first is not necessary starting in Fedora
19, and was actively removed from ocaml packages in Fedora 20 (see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189247.html).
The last three lines have not been needed for a very long time; I
don't remember now when they became unnecessary, but it was prior to
Fedora 19. Also, the strip invocation in %install should be removed,
and we need to figure out how to add -g to the compiler flags,
probably with something like this in %prep:
sed -i 's/ocamlopt/ocamlopt -g/;s/ocamlc \(-[co]\)/ocamlc -g \1/' Makefile
2) The build seems to need ocaml-findlib only, not ocaml-findlib-devel;
i.e., the ocamlfind tool is used, but I don't see any use of the
ocaml-findlib library in the source code.
3) Not all architectures support ocaml. Add this to your spec file:
ExclusiveArch: %{ocaml_arches}
4) There is no need to build the bytecode version for architectures that
support native code. I suggest changing the make invocation to this,
without the leading make:
%if %opt
make %{?_smp_mflags} opt
%else
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%endif
5) Since the packages are arch-specific, the dependency from the -devel
subpackage to the main package should include %{?_isa}.
6) Consider adding a %check section. The make test invocation just
creates output files without checking them for correctness, so that's
not sufficient, unless you are just testing for crashes, or the like.
There may not be a reasonable test to run. I will leave this to your
disgression.
7) The description contains two British English spellings, as noted by
the spell checker (see below). American English uses only one 'l'
where British English uses two in modeled and labeled.
8) The line:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
at the top of %install is not needed in Fedora. The versions of RPM
in all supported Fedora releases do this already. (If you are
thinking of building the package for EPEL, that's another story.)
9) Rpmlint complains about %define libname. I understand that you can't
use %global at that location, since %{name} hasn't been defined yet.
One solution to that is to use %global, but move the definition
farther down in the spec file, perhaps just above %description.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
The flags are missing -g; see issue #1 above.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
See the spell checker's output below. American English uses only
one 'l' where British English uses two: modeled and labeled.
See issue #7 above.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
See issue #1 above.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
This is missing. See issue #3 above.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package
[Bug 1055712] New: Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 Bug ID: 1055712 Summary: Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: l...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Things to note: 1. This is docker-io renamed to docker. 2. This will go into non-EPEL fedora starting with f22 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/341. 3. This will tentatively go into EPEL with EPEL7 asap (and EPEL6 sometime after the previous docker package is retired) 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043676 Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/docker/SOURCES/docker.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/docker/SRPMS/docker-0.7.6-3.fc21.src.rpm Description: Docker is an open-source engine that automates the deployment of any application as a lightweight, portable, self-sufficient container that will run virtually anywhere. Docker containers can encapsulate any payload, and will run consistently on and between virtually any server. The same container that a developer builds and tests on a laptop will run at scale, in production*, on VMs, bare-metal servers, OpenStack clusters, public instances, or combinations of the above. Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6430852 (currently for rawhide, epel7 scratch builds won't succeed until https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055684 is taken care of) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 852824 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=852824action=edit docker systemd unit file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mat...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1043676 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055721] New: Review Request: qpid-dispatch - Dispatch router for Qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055721 Bug ID: 1055721 Summary: Review Request: qpid-dispatch - Dispatch router for Qpid Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dpie...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-dispatch.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-dispatch-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Dispatch router for Qpid Fedora Account System Username: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055730] New: Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730 Bug ID: 1055730 Summary: Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgans...@alice.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: This plugin integrates multicast IPTV transport streams seamlessly into VDR. You can use any IPTV channel like any other normal DVB channel for live viewing, recording, etc. The plugin also features full section filtering capabilities which allow for example EIT information to be extracted from the incoming stream. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-iptv.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-iptv-2.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 852837 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=852837action=edit patch for docs generation on el6+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 --- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 852838 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=852838action=edit init script (for el6) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036320] Review Request: nftables - Netfilter Tables userspace utillites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320 Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- FYI, [ANNOUNCE]: Release of nftables 0.099 http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdevm=139022351723838 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1003188] Review Request: eclipse-pdt - PHP Development Tools (PDT) Eclipse plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003188 --- Comment #6 from Alex Villacís Lasso a_villa...@palosanto.com --- I built the linked SRPM under Fedora 20 with latest updates as of 2014-01-20. When installing and trying to open a PHP file in a project, I get this backtrace: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Overlapping start in StyleRange 2:1 at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.configuration.PresentationCollector.add(PresentationCollector.java:35) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.highlighter.LineStyleProviderForPhp.prepareTextRegions(LineStyleProviderForPhp.java:610) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.highlighter.LineStyleProviderForPhp.prepareRegions(LineStyleProviderForPhp.java:466) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.configuration.StructuredDocumentDamagerRepairer.createPresentation(StructuredDocumentDamagerRepairer.java:80) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.configuration.PHPStructuredPresentationReconciler.createPresentation(PHPStructuredPresentationReconciler.java:352) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.provisional.style.StructuredPresentationReconciler.processDamage(StructuredPresentationReconciler.java:870) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.provisional.style.StructuredPresentationReconciler$InternalListener.inputDocumentChanged(StructuredPresentationReconciler.java:271) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.provisional.style.StructuredPresentationReconciler.install(StructuredPresentationReconciler.java:600) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.StructuredTextViewer.updateHighlighter(StructuredTextViewer.java:987) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.StructuredTextViewer.setDocument(StructuredTextViewer.java:865) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.PHPStructuredTextViewer.setDocument(PHPStructuredTextViewer.java:645) at org.eclipse.jface.text.source.SourceViewer.setDocument(SourceViewer.java:590) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.AbstractTextEditor.initializeSourceViewer(AbstractTextEditor.java:4047) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.AbstractTextEditor.createPartControl(AbstractTextEditor.java:3575) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.StatusTextEditor.createPartControl(StatusTextEditor.java:54) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.AbstractDecoratedTextEditor.createPartControl(AbstractDecoratedTextEditor.java:447) at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.StructuredTextEditor.createPartControl(StructuredTextEditor.java:1516) at org.eclipse.php.internal.ui.editor.PHPStructuredEditor.createPartControl(PHPStructuredEditor.java:2265) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.e4.compatibility.CompatibilityPart.createPartControl(CompatibilityPart.java:142) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.e4.compatibility.CompatibilityEditor.createPartControl(CompatibilityEditor.java:96) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.e4.compatibility.CompatibilityPart.create(CompatibilityPart.java:323) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.MethodRequestor.execute(MethodRequestor.java:56) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.processAnnotated(InjectorImpl.java:877) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.processAnnotated(InjectorImpl.java:857) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.inject(InjectorImpl.java:119) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.internalMake(InjectorImpl.java:333) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.make(InjectorImpl.java:254) at org.eclipse.e4.core.contexts.ContextInjectionFactory.make(ContextInjectionFactory.java:162) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.ReflectionContributionFactory.createFromBundle(ReflectionContributionFactory.java:102) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.ReflectionContributionFactory.doCreate(ReflectionContributionFactory.java:71) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.ReflectionContributionFactory.create(ReflectionContributionFactory.java:53) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.workbench.renderers.swt.ContributedPartRenderer.createWidget(ContributedPartRenderer.java:129) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine.createWidget(PartRenderingEngine.java:949) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine.safeCreateGui(PartRenderingEngine.java:633) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine.safeCreateGui(PartRenderingEngine.java:735) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine.access$2(PartRenderingEngine.java:706) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine$7.run(PartRenderingEngine.java:700) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.SafeRunner.run(SafeRunner.java:42) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.PartRenderingEngine.createGui(PartRenderingEngine.java:685)
[Bug 1055246] Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055246 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- thanks for the review @cicku. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-scrapy Short Description: A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework Owners: echevemaster Branches: F20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055771] New: Review Request: trinity - System call fuzz tester
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055771 Bug ID: 1055771 Summary: Review Request: trinity - System call fuzz tester Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/trinity/trinity.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/trinity/trinity-1.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Trinity makes syscalls at random, with random arguments. Where Trinity differs from other fuzz testers is that the arguments it passes are not purely random. We found some bugs in the past by just passing random values, but once the really dumb bugs were found, these dumb fuzzers would just run and run. The problem was if a syscall took for example a file descriptor as an argument, one of the first things it would try to do was validate that fd. Being garbage, the kernel would just reject it as -EINVAL of course. So on startup, Trinity creates a list of file descriptors, by opening pipes, scanning sysfs, procfs, /dev, and creates a bunch of sockets using random network protocols. Then when a syscall needs an fd, it gets passed one of these at random. File descriptors aren't the only thing Trinity knows about. Every syscall has its arguments annotated, and where possible it tries to provide something at least semi-sensible. Length arguments for example get passed one of a whole bunch of potentially interesting values. (Powers of 2 +/-1 are a good choice for triggering off-by-one bugs it seems). Trinity also shares those file descriptors between multiple threads, which causes havoc sometimes. If a child process successfully creates an mmap, the pointer is stored, and fed to subsequent syscalls, sometimes with hilarious results. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055789] New: Review Request: rubygem-awesome_spawn - AwesomeSpawn is a module that provides some useful features over Ruby's Kernel.spawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055789 Bug ID: 1055789 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-awesome_spawn - AwesomeSpawn is a module that provides some useful features over Ruby's Kernel.spawn Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: axill...@archlinux.gr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org I'd like to bring polisher in Fedora and this is the only runtime dep missing. Spec URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-awesome_spawn.spec SRPM URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-awesome_spawn-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6431651 Description: AwesomeSpawn is a module that provides some useful features over Ruby's Kernel.spawn. Some additional features include: - Parameter passing as a Hash or associative Array sanitizing them to prevent command line injection. - Results returned as an object giving access to the output stream, error stream, and exit status. - Optionally raising an exception when exit status is not 0. Fedora Account System Username: axilleas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] New: Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Bug ID: 1055799 Summary: Review Request: sbt - simple build tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: wi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/sbt.spec SRPM URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/sbt/sbt-0.13.1-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: simple build tool for Scala projects Fedora Account System Username: willb NB: this package requires a bootstrap build (and has two dependencies that also require it to build). The bootstrap spec, SRPM, and binary RPM are available from http://freevariable.com/sbt/bootstrap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||sbt-package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055800] New: Review Request: test-interface - uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055800 Bug ID: 1055800 Summary: Review Request: test-interface - uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: wi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/test-interface.spec SRPM URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/test-interface-1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks Fedora Account System Username: willb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1055800 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055800 [Bug 1055800] Review Request: test-interface - uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055800] Review Request: test-interface - uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055800 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055799 (sbt-package) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 [Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055802] New: Review Request: sbinary - typed Scala interface to binary formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055802 Bug ID: 1055802 Summary: Review Request: sbinary - typed Scala interface to binary formats Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: wi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/sbinary.spec SRPM URL: http://freevariable.com/sbt/sbinary-0.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: typed Scala interface to binary formats Fedora Account System Username: willb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055802] Review Request: sbinary - typed Scala interface to binary formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055802 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055799 (sbt-package) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 [Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1055802 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055802 [Bug 1055802] Review Request: sbinary - typed Scala interface to binary formats -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
